Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Steps Anyone Can Take to Help Stop Interpersonal Violence (Psychology Today)

Today's essay is about a disturbing subject, but I write it to suggest some things that everyone can do. Women's
History Month is a good time to look at the still painful, complicated
problem of what used to be called "wife battering" and is now called the
genderless "domestic violence" (DV). Although some people have claimed that there is no sex
difference in the perpetrating of domestic violence, women are less
likely to initiate such violence and more likely to be injured.

What
continues to make DV still more a danger for women than for men is the
combination of the average woman's shorter stature, lower body weight,
physical strength, and salary than those of the average man (the lower
salary making women less financially independent and thus finding it
more difficult simply to leave abusers), as well as the fact that women
are more likely than men to have primary childcare responsibilities.

DV has been shown to be different from other types of
violence, in that the former results in what experts call "unique
psychological harm" as well. To be mugged in the park by a stranger is a
horrible experience but does not involve either the betrayal of trust
when the perpetrator is a family member (never mind, as sometimes, the
primary breadwinner for the family) or the excruciating conflicts
experienced by the victim about whether, and how, to get out of the
relationship, especially but not solely when the couple has children.
Many years ago, I wrote The Myth of Women's Masochism partly because I
was appalled to hear people assert that battered women who stay with
their batterers do so because they enjoy the suffering.

That DV remains so common is troubling, but here are two hopeful ways to help reduce it:

(1)
Daniel Manne, formerly a practicing attorney with a J.D. who is also a
recent LL.M graduate of Harvard Law School and currently a Fellow in the
Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard Kennedy School, has studied
sex equity and policies about violence against women. His LL.M. thesis
revealed the inadequacy of the state's response to violence against
women in the United States, and he points out that Congressional
testimony regarding the creation of the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA) included "clear evidence that domestic violence has a profound
effect on the women as a general class in America. An assault committed
by a male partner in the privacy of a household has consequences far in
excess of a comparable mugging. Domestic violence effectively silences
abused women, compromising their autonomy and robbing them of control
and the promise of safety within their own homes. Having no safe haven,
women live in fear—both individually, and in a more diffuse way,
throughout the community as a whole."

Before those who do not believe that sexism exists any more cry out their protests, I will say that some women do not have that fear,
because some women have, happily, not been touched by DV in their own
lives. Sometimes, until it happens to you or someone you know, the
reality and the effects of DV just don't seem real.

Manne argues
that, "The imminent threat or risk of living in violence itself
constitutes a harm and a significant barrier to freedom. For, even when
they are not themselves the direct victims of domestic violence, women
are socially constructed as an apt locus for abuse. In other words,
they are the ones who get beaten—as they are all too well aware. This
is not to say that men are never victims; but such violence is too
unusual to be systemic, and constitutes an exception to the rule."

In light of this understanding
of the problem, reports Manne, the VAWA contained a provision that
allowed victims of sex/gender-motivated violence to sue their batterers
(or rapists) in federal court for damages. He says, "The logic of the
provision was that violence against women was a form of discrimination
and, therefore, the victim was entitled to compensation. In order to
succeed, however, the victim was required to demonstrate that the act of
violence was motivated by an animus towards women. This provision of
VAWA was struck down by the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison
(2000)."

Despite this setback, Manne says that domestic violence
should be considered a matter of civil rights. He says that, "It is not
at all clear that most violence against women is motivated by animus
towards women generally," but even if it were, "the policy tools used to
combat discrimination are not a good fit in the domestic violence
context. A civil suit for damages is the farthest thing from a victim's
mind when trying to flee a violent household. If we are going to adopt
efficacious policy, we need to recognize domestic violence for what it
really is: a civil rights violation. When it comes to the issue of gender
equality, no issue can be more important than the foundational concern
of bodily integrity. Important as these issues are, it remains a luxury
to worry about the second-shift problem or the wage-gap when many women
cannot feel safe in their own homes. All civil rights are contingent
upon physical security. When one sex faces widespread physical
intimidation and control, we have a civil rights problem."

To
those who would argue that not every woman is intimidated to the point
of deprivation of her civil rights and that some men also are, Manne
replies, "The Supreme Court has held that disparate impact [on women in
contrast to men] alone is not sufficient to support most civil rights
claims, but severe 'adverse impact' can be sufficient. Not every member
of a class needs necessarily to feel the impact or bias to support a
civil rights claim."

Manne says further that "Domestic violence
that is man against women means something different than woman against
man in exactly the same way that White on Black crime in the South in
the Jim Crow era was different than Black on White crime. Citing
Catherine MacKinnon's work, we need to accept that there is an existing
hierarchy of social privilege and violence" and that this "can have
broader civil rights implications."

If you share Manne's view, one
thing you can do is to tell others about this argument, including
victims of domestic violence, because helping people understand these
matters can go some way toward empowering the victims, whether solely in
their own minds and hearts, whether it helps them explain their
situations and feelings to others about whom they care, or whether it
moves them to seek legal redress.

Manne writes, "Thus my
argument is that private acts of violence committed in the most personal
of settings have a wide-spread and devastating impact on an entire
class of citizens. Every year between 1,500 and 3,000 women are killed
by their intimate partners.... Even if you do everything right to
protect yourself, he can still get you. Recognizing both the severity
and the breath of the problem makes it all the more clear that new
policy is required. This new policy needs to be premised on the
understanding that the real tragedy of intra-family violence is not the
bruises and broken bones, but the broken psyches and violated rights.
It is therefore not appropriate to treat the violence simply as a
criminal justice matter. The criminal justice system is, by its very
nature, reactive. What we need is a pro-active, preventative model for
addressing domestic violence. This new model should allow for routine
check-ups on families with a history of violence, mandatory counseling
for offenders, economic assistance for women fleeing violence, GPS
monitoring of high-risk reoffenders, and other simple but important
tools to prevent repeat abuse... It is time for America to bring out the
big guns to combat a problem of this magnitude: the tools designed to
fight civil rights violations."

Another kind of major initiative,
which every individual and every group can join, is the recently-created
National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence (http://www.uncg.edu/psy/npeiv/), which is helping to promote a Stop the Abuse! campaign (http://www.uncg.edu/psy/npeiv/summary.pdf
) aimed to end every kind of violence between people. Its organizers
hope that, by raising awareness of the seriousness of all kinds of
interpersonal violence as, for instance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving
transformed the ways that people think about drunk driving and what
should be done about it, they will have a major impact on these various
forms of abuse.